CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The effort to change the way money is involved in campaign financing has been a common theme in American politics, even in non-election years. Since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, many people have had the opinion that much more had to be done to reform the way money was involved in politics, especially in elections. The focus for many is on the federal elections, pointedly the presidential elections. A few weeks ago, the United States House of Representatives took the first step towards ending public financing of national political elections and conventions of political parties. Those behind this measure contend that the public no longer believed in public financing, citing that it was merely wasting tax monies. Since the 1970’s federal income tax forms allowed filers to donate to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. But, that program has never really been successful in raising campaign funds. In 2012, about 95% of the taxpayers did not donate the $3 to the fund.

Donations to political parties and candidates is the other major funding source and has always been a “hot button” issue. Both the public and the candidates believe there must be a change in the funding and that is nothing new. But, exactly how to do it is the continuing debate. The most recent federal legislation, the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, limited donations by individuals to only $1,000 and Political Action Committees were limited to $5,000. These particular donations are known as “hard money” donations. Money which is donated by organizations but not targeting a specific candidate or campaign is sometimes termed “soft money.” This money can be used for a political party on organizations, recruiting, or such things, without specifically naming a candidate. This is unregulated because it does not go to a particular candidate, although some say that is the actual result. In other words, grass-roots organizing and state level or local level political matters...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...million in the 2000 Presidential election (“Data Points: Presidential Campaign Spending,” 2008). The majority of the increase has come from the ability of corporations and unions to now donate unlimited amounts of money to Political Action Committees, groups set up with the sole purpose of spending money in elections. The power that these groups now hold over the democratic process is astounding, giving them large amounts of sway over politicians after the elections are over. Corruption was always the motivating factor in passing campaignfinance laws, in the wake of the Citizen’s United ruling prior reforms no longer protect the American people from the polluting influence big money has over politician’s.
Prior to 1907, many campaignfinancereforms were small in scale and prevented forced donations to political campaigns (“The Federal Election Campaign Laws”, n.d., para. 2). The most sweeping reforms did not occur until 1907, President Roosevelt introduced the Tillman Act to Congress, disallowing all contributions from national banks and corporations to candidates (Jost, 2010). Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971 (Billitteri, 2008), which put limits on individual contributions and increased public disclosure, as well as establishing regulations during elections. After the Watergate scandal,...

...Limitations on CampaignFinance Contributions
By:
Professor: Robert J Stewart
January 4, 2011
It has always cost money to run for office, although the amount of money spent, and the types of expenditures made, has changed considerably over the years. For decades, campaignfinancereform has been an on-going topic of discussion that has fueled rage among voters and lobbyists alike. In particular, the Bipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was heralded as a major breakthrough in controlling the flow of money into campaigns. Almost immediately, political organizations and candidates found other ways to financially manipulate new laws. Oftentimes the loopholes they find make a significant impact on an election, sparking the next round of campaignfinancereform. New rules are then enacted, and new loopholes are found. Like a big political slight-of-hand game, the amount of money in politics never actually decreases, but instead gets moved around from one organization to another. In an effort to level the playing field for all those who decide to run for public office, if I could be “King for a day,” I would create a law that would prohibit political candidates from using anything other than campaign contributions from individuals in order to reduce the amount of special interest money that is...

...Final Exam Essay Outline on Campaign Funding
I. Intro
a. In contrast with the presidential election, spending in congressional races has declined since 2006; however, campaign financing in congressional electrons is still equally as important as the presidential election.
b. Money does not buy victory but it certainly doesn’t hurt it; in fact, trends in the United States, especially in the case of the Senate and House elections, the more money challengers can spend when they run against incumbents, the better their chances are of victory.
c. But many citizens wonder where this money comes from. Most people know that the national political parties fund most of the elections; however, most citizens don’t know that that is not the only place funding comes from.
d. Thesis
d.i. Although campaignfinance is regulated very closely by the Federal Electron Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA) and the Bipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002 (BCRA), there are many ways to finance a campaign besides receiving money from political parties (party in government), including individual citizens, political action committees (PACs), and the candidates’ own resources. In this paper I will be describing these three other ways that a candidate can raise funding for his or her election as well as describe the restrictions that FECA and BCRA have both placed on these...

...Any campaignfinancereform must be structured within the framework of the Constitution.
When examining the role of the government in situations of participation in political processes, the role as the protector of rights and privileges as identified in the Constitution must be weighed against its role as a regulator of the political process. A primary principle of the First Amendment is to protect and encourage the rights of individuals and organizations to participate in our civic process (Federal CampaignFinance Law). This right to be involved in the political system is an important privilege and should not be taken lightly. Any campaignfinancereform must be structured within the framework of the Constitution.
Disclosure requirements are observed as means to deter corruption by requiring that contributions made to elected officials and candidates are made public in federal elections. Disclosure allows voters to make up their own minds based on the information that is placed before them. Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis believes, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman” (Brandeis, 97). Brandeis’ statement laid the groundwork of the Sunlight Foundation, which was founded on the idea that utilizing new...

...CampaignFinanceReform
Effective election campaigns have always relied on the candidates’ ability to raise money. Even in the days before television, radio and the internet, it still took money to get the word out to the people in a far-flung land. However, today’s candidates are faced with raising larger and larger amounts of money with each new election that comes along.
Individuals are the primary source of campaign funding at the federal level, with political action committees running a close second. Their donations are regulated donations and are referred to as “hard money.” Organizations also contribute money to campaigns but often do so indirectly in ways that allow them to skirt regulations pertaining to campaignfinance. This is referred to as “soft money.”
With election season upon us, there has been a lot of talk about campaignfinancereform. There are those who feel that the current system lacks fairness because wealthy individuals and special interest groups wield far greater power, and have far more say about certain issues, than ordinary citizens who cannot afford to make large contributions to their candidate’s campaign.
One of the biggest hurdles to implementing campaignfinancereform is the constitutional issue of free speech....

...Campaign Spending
One interesting part of campaignfinance is that there's no limit on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. Wealthy presidential hopefuls Ross Perot and Steve Forbes donated substantial chunks of their own fortunes. Mitt Romney, a candidate in the presidential race, has been the largest donor to his own campaign by a wide margin.
The Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 prohibits corporations and incorporated charitable organizations from giving to or spending for a candidate. However, PACs are a good way for corporations to dodge this law. It seems like for every regulation in place, there's a loophole that allows groups to bypass it.
Bundling is another tactic used to skirt the regulations of the FEC. Bundling is when an individual gathers contributions from a large number of people and donates the money all at once to a campaign. The bundler often enjoys prominence in the campaign and can gain access to the candidate to make a plea for his or her special interest. Bundling is currently a hot topic of debate and frequently called out in reform talks.
. A cap on expenditure was initially made into legislation with FECA. However, the Supreme Court overturned the law in a landmark case just a few years later. The result of Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have no cap on spending as long as the money...

...money has enormous influence on the conduct and nature of general elections in all democracies whether consolidated or transitional. It is now common knowledge that elections have become very costly not only to the governments that have to manage them, but also to the political parties and individual candidates. The high costs of elections have direct bearing on two ingredients of electoral democracy, namely, popular participation and fair contestation. Indeed, it has been argued that the large sums of money spent in elections have had tragic effects on democracy including deterring citizens from political participation.1 There is also the danger that as elections become more expensive and campaign spending increases considerably, effective participation will be absent from the election campaigns. This is likely to lead to the poor losing confidence in the efficacy of their contribution to the democratic process.2 Another effect is that when elections become expensive, fund raising becomes the preoccupation of politicians thereby distracting them from public policy making and their role as trustees of public interest. The role of money in politics is a major concern, for any nation that adheres to democratic tenets. This raises concern because wealth creates unequal opportunity for participation.3 The source of funding itself is also a vexing issue, given that corporate funding of the political process generally increases non-participation in...

...Controversy has already erupted over the financing of the 2008 presidential campaign with experts projecting costs to exceed $1 billion (Sciffman). Candidate Hillary Clinton raised $8.5 million during only three events, surpassing the old record set in 2004 by John Edwards, who collected $7.4 million in three months (McAuliff). Vast amounts of money is being spent and raised on campaigns, and efforts to curb fundraising and spending have had only limited effects. Serious questions are being asked about money’s effects on candidates, presidents and democracy. According to a nonpartisan, online poll, 49% of people believe the issue of corruption should be a high priority for Congress (Government and Politics). The questionable fundraising methods used to collect enormous sums of money have lead the public to lose confidence and respect of those involved in the political and electoral process. The government is responsible for maintaining the right to political speech and association as mandated by the Constitution, in addition to preventing corruption and preserving public trust in electoral process. The views and beliefs held by proponents and opponents are equally at odds, and will continue to influence the regulation of campaignfinance until the system represents the ideals of the democratic process. Within the current system, a dichotomy exists between highly regulated areas such as contribution limits and...